Scottish Executive

Autism

Mr Lloyd Quinan (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-29088 by Mr Frank McAveety on 20 September 2002, what priorities were identified by the working group established by the Public Health Institute for Scotland to deliver the recommendations set out in the Autistic Spectrum Disorders Needs Assessment Report , when it met on 24 June 2002; how these priorities will be delivered, and within what timescale.

Mr Frank McAveety: Priorities identified included improvements in diagnosis, joint working, training and research. Many of these priorities are for health and social work service providers to deliver at local level. We intend to write to local agencies in the near future on implementation of the report’s recommendations.

Autism

Mr Lloyd Quinan (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-29088 by Mr Frank McAveety on 20 September 2002, what plans there are to make the minutes of future meetings of the Autistic Spectrum Disorders Needs Assessment Report Working Group available and what the reasons are for the position on this matter.

Mr Frank McAveety: These matters were not discussed at the meeting of the group on 24 June. Plans for recording and disseminating notes of meetings of the group will be discussed at the next meeting in November.

E-Government

Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made towards the 2005 electronic service delivery target.

Mr Andy Kerr: We have today published the Executive’s 3rd Electronic Service Delivery Progress Report . Over all 69% of services provided by the Executive, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are now available online to some degree. This represents a 2% increase since the last report was published in May this year. This third report now also includes a column indicating the stage of development these services have reached. Copies of the report have been placed in the Parliament’s Reference Centre. It is also available on the 21st Century Government website and the OpenScotland website.

  The Executive has provided a corrected answer which is published in the written answer report on 23 December 2002: see http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/wa-02/wa1223.htm.

Economy

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how reliant the economy has been on foreign trade in each of the last 10 years.

Iain Gray: The following table shows estimates of the annual current price exports and imports figures between Scotland, other parts of the United Kingdom and locations outwith the United Kingdom (Rest of the World) for the years 1992 to 1999. Figures in italics show these annual imports and exports as percentages of domestic output from the Scottish economy.

  Trade between Scotland, the Rest of the World and the Rest of the United Kingdom 1992-99

  


Calendar year#:
Rest of the World 
  

1992^ 
  

1993^ 
  

1994 
  

1995 
  

1996 
  

1997 
  

1998 
  

1999 
  



Exports to Rest of World 
(£ million) 
  

 13,900 
  

 15,200 
  

16,300 
  

19,000 
  

 21,100 
  

* 
  

21,700 
  

22,200 
  



Exports as a percentage of domestic output 
  

16%


17%


16%


17%


17%


*


16%


16%




Imports from Rest of World 
(£ million) 
  

 13,400 
  

 12,700 
  

15,400 
  

 16,200 
  

 16,800 
  

* 
  

17,400 
  

18,700 
  



Imports as a percentage of domestic output 
  

16%


14%


16%


14%


14%


*


13%


13%




Rest of the United Kingdom 
  



Exports to Rest of UK 
(£ million) 
  

 15,100 
  

 17,100 
  

16,400 
  

 20,300 
  

 22,200 
  

* 
  

22,800 
  

23,100 
  



Exports as a percentage of domestic output 
  

18% 
  

19% 
  

17% 
  

18% 
  

18% 
  

* 
  

16% 
  

16% 
  



Imports from Rest of UK 
(£ million) 
  

 24,200 
  

 25,900 
  

27,200 
  

 28,900 
  

 31,500 
  

* 
  

31,000 
  

32,300 
  



Imports as a percentage of domestic output 
  

28% 
  

29% 
  

28% 
  

25% 
  

25% 
  

* 
  

22% 
  

23% 
  



  Source: Input-Output Tables and Multipliers for Scotland.

  Notes:

  #Information relating to calendar years 1992-1996 are valued at Producer prices; thereafter valued at basic prices.

  *Information not available.

  ^Unpublished data.

  This information has been extracted from the Input-Output Tables and Multipliers for Scotland. The most recent edition of this annual publication, for the calendar year 1999, was published on 24 June 2002.

European Union

Andrew Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what specific representation it will have at the European eSkills Summit 2002 on 17 and 18 October 2002 in Copenhagen and, if no representative of it is to attend, what process is in place to ensure that Scottish interests are addressed and what the reason is for such non-attendance.

Iain Gray: No representative of the Scottish Executive is expected to attend the eSkills Summit. The summit is primarily intended to address issues about the development of high-level, technical Information and Communication Technology skills within Europe. There are no specific Scottish characteristics to these skills. Scottish interests in developing these skills are being addressed through eskills UK, the aspirant Sector Skills Council. There are good links between the Scottish Executive and eskills UK. UK involvement in the preparatory work for the summit, led by officials in the DTI, has sought to ensure that the work of eskills UK is given due weight in the summit.

European Union

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what the outcome was of the European Commission Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting on 23 to 24 September 2002 and whether it will give details of any discussion on the deep water fishery.

Ross Finnie: I attended the first of the newly merged Agriculture and Fisheries Councils with Margaret Becket, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Elliot Morley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the same department on behalf of the UK in Brussels on 23 to 24 September 2002. The following matters were discussed:

  Agriculture

  Transport of Live Animals

  The council held a public debate on the transport of live animals with the UK recommending better monitoring of animal welfare in transit and supporting the case for reducing maximum journey times to eight hours. The UK noted, however, the need for practical rules which provided, for example, for limited derogations to deal with the difficulties of transport within the remoter regions of member states and mentioned in particular the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. These matters will be further considered as negotiations proceed.

  Review of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

  The council also began its detailed consideration of the mid-term review of the CAP published in July with a discussion of the proposals for the arable sector. This was a preliminary discussion in which the UK stressed the importance of securing further reform of the CAP and recalled the importance that developing countries attached to improved trading conditions for agriculture as they had emphasised at the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

  BSE and Scrapie

  The Commission reported the latest information on BSE and scrapie in the EU, noting that there had been no significant development since its last report to the council.

  Genetically modified food

  The Presidency reported the state of progress on the proposal for rules governing genetically modified food and feed and signalled its intention to seek political agreement on a compromise at the October Council. It also reported progress in the drawing up of an action plan for organic food and farming.

  Fisheries

  Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

  This was the first Council debate on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The discussion took the form of a low-key table round based upon a questionnaire produced by the Presidency and focussed around three key areas: conservation and sustainability of fish stocks; fleet policy, and control and enforcement. The Commission advocated the introduction of multi-annual management plans for fish stocks, associated effort controls, a continuing ceiling on the capacity of member states’ fleets, additional incentives for voluntary decommissioning schemes, and an end to grant-aid for fleet modernisation and vessel construction. It confirmed that there were no plans to end aid for safety improvements, but that there would be no increase in the Community contribution for aid for decommissioning. On enforcement the Commission advocated better co-operation among member states and between the Commission and member states. The UK supported multi-annual management involving clear biological targets for all stocks and a range of management measures capable of being applied flexibly to individual stocks according to their circumstances. The UK also stressed that inaction was not an option and indicated willingness to explore all available options whether these involved capacity or effort reduction or both. It emphasised that construction and modernisation grants should cease, and indicated support for better enforcement provided that enhanced arrangements at Community level could be made compatible with the Treaty and national competence for criminal law and procedure.

  The Presidency indicated that it aims to conclude the reform package in November and that a further debate on CFP reform will take place at the October Council.

  Strategy for Sustainable Aquaculture

  The Commission presented its strategy for sustainable aquaculture, which will now be examined by a Council Working Group with a view to discussion at a future Council.

  Deep Water Species

  Deep-water species was not on the agenda for this Council.

Health

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to initiate a scheme between Citizens Advice Scotland and the NHS similar to the "Good Advice: Good Health" scheme in Wales on local co-ordinated advice services provision in primary health care

Malcolm Chisholm: The Executive is committed to improving the access to, and quality of, health information for patients and is investing £3 million over the next three years to deliver this as part of the Patient Focus and Public Involvement programme of work. A number of initiatives are in place to support this commitment; NHS 24 and a comprehensive patient information package to replace the Patient’s Charter will be central to this.

  In addition, a "Patient Information Initiative" will be developed which will:

  assure the quality of patient information, based on a range of evidence;

  involve and engage with other sources of expertise such as expert patients;

  make information accessible and available in a variety of formats, and

  link to future developments (e.g. NHS 24 online).

  Citizens Advice Scotland has already established a number of local advice centres in primary health care settings in Scotland. Following a meeting with their Chief Executive in May, Citizens Advice Scotland have been invited to submit a proposal to the Scottish Executive Health Department for developing an initiative along the lines of "Good Advice: Good Health".

Housing

Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, what consideration will be given to holding a further ballot in the event that the proposed Glasgow housing stock transfer does not take place by the deadline of 28 November 2002.

Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects the proposed Glasgow housing stock transfer to take place.

Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take in the event that the proposed Glasgow housing stock transfer does not take place by the deadline of 28 November 2002.

Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take in the event that the proposed Glasgow housing stock transfer is unable to take place.

Ms Margaret Curran: The Executive has always maintained that the transfer would be concluded by the end of the year. There will be no requirement for a further ballot of tenants.

Justice

Brian Fitzpatrick (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it will give to legislation providing for a presumption of remand into custody where an accused person has tested positive for Class A drugs at arrest.

Mr Jim Wallace: We have no immediate plans to consider making such provision in Scotland.

  We have, however, noted the proposal in the UK Government’s recently published White Paper Justice for All to pilot such a presumption where a suspect tests positive for a class A drug at arrest but refuses treatment. We shall follow this pilot scheme with interest.

Justice

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many High Court sentences have been reduced (a) under human rights legislation and (b) for any other reasons in each of the last three years and how many such sentences were originally life sentences.

Mr Jim Wallace: The information relating to successful appeals against sentence in High Court cases is contained in the following table:

  

 

1998 
  

1999 
  

2000 
  



Total of which involved life sentences 
  

61 
  

56 
  

105 
  



Appeal against sentence1


4 
  

1 
  

1 
  



Appeal against aspects of sentence2


15 
  

11 
  

74 
  



  Notes:

  1. Crime reduced from murder to culpable homicide or a re-trial was authorised.

  2. Effective start date or punishment part.

  There have been no sentences imposed in the High Court that have been reduced as a result of the provisions contained in the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001 under which the High Court is required to specify the punishment part of a life sentence. The punishment part is such part of a life sentence as the court considers appropriate to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence (ignoring the period, if any, which may be necessary for the protection of the public). The sentence of life imprisonment is unaffected by the fixing of the punishment part. It is only once the punishment part has expired that the prisoner has the right to require the Scottish ministers to refer his or her case to the Parole Board for the board to decide whether the prisoner requires to continue to be confined for the protection of the public.

  Under the transitional provisions contained in the Schedule to the 2001 act, the Scottish ministers are under a duty, subject to certain exceptions detailed in the Schedule, to refer to the High Court the cases of life prisoners who were sentenced prior to 8 October 2001, the date on which the relevant provisions came into force, for a punishment part to be fixed. As regards those prisoners who were the subject of minimum recommendations made by the sentencing court under the former statutory provisions, as the Appeal Court noted in its opinion in the case of William Stewart v Her Majesty’s Advocate, issued on 6 September 2002 (Appeal No. C228/02): "it does not follow that periods which have been recommended in the past provide a general yardstick by reference to which the length of a punishment part should be determined." The full Opinion is available on the Scottish Court Service website (www.scotcourts.gov.uk).

Justice

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-28834 by Mrs Elish Angiolini on 13 September 2002, whether prosecuting authorities have attended bail hearings for people (a) charged with and (b) convicted of (i) serious assault, (ii) rape, (iii) culpable homicide and (iv) murder, and what percentage of the total number in each category they have attended in each of the last three years; if these figures are not available, what its best estimate is of the percentage of attendance by prosecutors at bail hearings for people after conviction (1) for murder and rape or (2) in the most serious High Court cases, including murder and rape, in each of the last three years.

Mrs Elish Angiolini: Prosecutors are present in court at all applications for bail that follow immediately upon conviction. Prosecutors are also present in court in relation to all bail applications heard in the High Court, because these applications are dealt with each day in the Bail Court and other cases in that court require prosecutorial input. Prosecutors will not necessarily be present in the sheriff court when sheriffs are considering applications for interim liberation. Prosecutors are therefore present at all post conviction bail hearings of murder, rape and culpable homicide.

Justice

Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive how many people are on bail following a petition appearance charged with murder and waiting to be served with indictment.

Colin Boyd QC: There are at present 17 cases in which an accused has appeared on petition charged with murder and been released on bail and in which indictments have not yet been served.

Ministerial Visits

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-29052 by Mr Andy Kerr on 9 September 2002, whether the figures include the costs of any staff and/or officials who may have accompanied ministers and, if not, what the costs of any such staff and/or officials were and how many staff and/or officials accompanied each minister on each visit.

Mr Andy Kerr: The figures do not include the costs of staff and/or officials who accompanied ministers. This information and the numbers of staff and/or officials who accompanied ministers could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Parliamentary Questions

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what the average length of time was for providing substantive answers to written parliamentary questions lodged in the period 1 to 12 September (a) 2001 and (b) 2002.

Patricia Ferguson: The average length of time for the provision of substantive answers to written parliamentary questions in the period 1 to 12 September in (a) 2001 was 19 calendar days. Of the questions lodged during period (b) and answered to date, the average time taken to answer them was 13 calendar days. As at 27 September, 87 of the questions lodged in the period 1 to 12 September were still awaiting substantive answer. I will write to the member with an update on performance once all outstanding questions have been answered. As with all outstanding questions, these will be answered as quickly as possible.

Police

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the use of baton guns by police forces will be monitored by any independent body reporting to ministers.

Mr Jim Wallace: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary monitors all aspects of policing which includes the deployment of firearms and less lethal weapons and equipment.

Police

Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish any guidelines which police forces will follow when using baton guns.

Mr Jim Wallace: The tactical deployment of baton guns and other less lethal options is a police operational matter and guidelines are contained in a Manual of Guidance on the Police Use of Firearms produced jointly by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS). A copy of the guidelines is available on the ACPO website at: http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/Contents.pdf.

Prison Service

Brian Fitzpatrick (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive how many responses it has received from respondents to its consultation on the Scottish Prison Service Estates Review with postal addresses in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency and of these responses how many expressed support (a) for the establishment of a new-build prison at the site of HM Prison Low Moss or (b) for an increase in the accommodation capacity for higher security category prisoners at the site of HM Prison Low Moss.

Mr Jim Wallace: The information held by the Scottish Executive about respondents to the Prison Estates Review consultation is contained in the document Consultation Responses – Alphabetic Overview of the responses to the Scottish Executive Consultation on the Future of the Scottish Prison Estate, published by the Executive on 26 July 2002. A copy of that document is available in the Parliament’s Reference Centre (Bib. number 22959). That document includes the postal addresses of respondents where that information was supplied. In some cases, particularly where responses were provided by e-mail, respondents did not give their postal addresses.

Prison Service

Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive how many prisoners were detained in HM Prison Cornton Vale on 15 August 2002 (a) in total and (b) serving (i) custodial alternatives to fines and (ii) sentences of (1) between seven days and three months, (2) between three and six months, (3) between six months and two years, (4) between two and five years and (5) over five years.

Mr Jim Wallace: I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

  The information requested is given in the following table:

  


(a) 
  

287 
  



(b) 
  

(i) 
  

9 
  



(ii) 
  

1 
  

14 
  



2 
  

38 
  



3 
  

72 
  



4 
  

70 
  



5 
  

42

Prison Service

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 requires amendment and what interim measures it is taking following the earlier suspension of the powers to impose additional days added or loss of remission, in the light of the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights on 15 July 2002 in the case of Okechukwiw Ezeh.

Mr Jim Wallace: On 11 June 2001, Scottish ministers decided to suspend the use of additional days and loss of remission in Scottish prisons. The European Court held on 15 July 2002 in the case of Ezeh & Connors v United Kingdom that there were Article 6 difficulties with the procedure for awarding Additional Days Added (ADAs).

  The decision to suspend the use of ADAs on 11 June 2001 didn’t lead to disciplinary problems. It was therefore decided that the time was right to complete the abolition of ADAs. On 16 August 2002, ministers remitted all ADAs which prisoners in Scotland were serving or were still liable to serve, provided these days had been awarded to a person sentenced by a Scottish court.

  No decision has yet been taken as to whether the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 and other legislation will be amended to remove references to additional days. The Ezeh & Connors judgement does not require the legislation to be amended.

Prison Service

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to reduce the number of people held on remand.

Mr Jim Wallace: Only the courts and the Lord Advocate have the direct power to reduce the number of accused held on remand, by means of the grant of bail to individual accused.

  The Executive has, however, provided funding and guidance to all local authorities to allow bail information and supervision schemes to be provided to courts within their areas.

  Bail information schemes are intended to assist procurators fiscal and courts through verification of information in respect of cases where bail might otherwise have been opposed or refused. Bail supervision is intended to increase the confidence of courts of successful completion of bail periods through the availability of supervised bail with the intention of reducing the number of accused remanded to custody.

Prison Service

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-27734 by Mr Jim Wallace on 15 August 2002, what the total value was of the fixtures, fittings and equipment removed from the buildings comprising HM Prison Zeist for reuse by the Scottish Prison Service prior to the buildings’ return to the Netherlands Government.

Mr Jim Wallace: I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

  £11,000 approximately.

Prison Service

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what the random mandatory drug testing results were for HM Prison Kilmarnock, broken down by (a) type of drug including (i) cannabis, (ii) benzodiazepines, (iii) opiates, (iv) methadone, (v) LSD, (vi) amphetamines, (vii) barbiturates, (viii) cocaine and (ix) temgesic, and (b) all tests and in-prison tests, in (1) 1999-2000, (2) 2000-01 and (3) 2001-02.

Mr Jim Wallace: I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

  Readily available information on random mandatory drug test results are published annually in the Drug Misuse Statistics Scotland annual bulletin, Drug Misuse Statistics Scotland 2001, published by the Information and Statistics Division in 2002.

  The figures for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 for HMP Kilmarnock, which were not included in previous bulletins, will be included in the next bulletin, and are as follows:

  

 

1999-2000 
  

2000-01 
  



Overall per cent positive 
  



All tests % positive (includes all prisoners) 
  

34 
  

24 
  



In-prison tests % positive (excludes results attributable 
  to pre-prison use) 
  

23 
  

16 
  



Percentage of samples positive for stated 
  drug type1




Cannabis 
  

22 
  

11 
  



Benzodiazepines 
  

7 
  

3 
  



Opiates 
  

14 
  

20 
  



Methadone 
  

0 
  

0 
  



LSD 
  

0 
  

0 
  



Amphetamines 
  

0 
  

0 
  



Barbiturates 
  

0 
  

0 
  



Cocaine 
  

0 
  

0 
  



Temgesic 
  

1 
  

0 
  



  Note:

  1. These percentages relate to the all-test positive rate (which includes those whose test result may have been due to pre-prison misuse), as this figure better relates to treatment need.

  The figures for 2001-02 will be published in the next annual bulletin.

Prison Service

Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many children in Edinburgh have been subject to an unruly certificate in each year since 1997.

Mr Jim Wallace: I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:

  The information available is given in the following table.

  Unruly Certificate Remands Where the Prisoner’s Recorded Address was in Edinburgh

  


Year 
  

Number of Unruly Certificate Remands 
  



1997 
  

2 
  



1998 
  

0 
  



1999 
  

0 
  



2000 
  

1 
  



2001(prov.) 
  

1

Protection From Abuse (Scotland ) Act 2001

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive with regard to comments made by Sheriff Principal Nicholson in the case Thomson v Thomson at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 10 June 2002, whether it plans to amend the Ordinary Cause Rules to facilitate the attachment of a power of arrest to common law interdicts that pre-date the coming into force of the Protection From Abuse (Scotland ) Act 2001.

Mr Jim Wallace: I understand that Sheriff Principal Nicholson's comments in Thomson v Thomson have been considered by the Sheriff Court Rules Council, the statutory body responsible for proposing rules on civil procedure in the sheriff court, and that a change to the rules will be recommended to the Lords of Council and Session as the rule making authority in response to those comments.

Public Appointments

Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether any of the new appointments or re-appointments to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council announced in June 2002 declared any interests on being appointed and, if so, what those interests were.

Iain Gray: No interests were declared as part of the appointment or re-appointment process.

Public Private Partnerships

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, whether it will publish details of the variant model founded on the public private partnership model developed with Argyll and Bute Council.

Mr Andy Kerr: One of the conditions of receiving funding in SEED Circular 8/2001 is that the Full Business Case should be made publicly available having due regard to issues of commercial confidentiality. Argyll and Bute Council was one of the councils to be awarded funding in the schools investment announcement of 25 June 2002.

Public Private Partnerships

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, why its press release SEED044/2002 of 25 June 2002 regarding the schools building programme did not refer to support for the variant model.

Mr Andy Kerr: The press release SEED044/2002 of 25 June 2002 announced levels of investment in schools and not the possible vehicles for delivering schools.

Public Private Partnerships

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, how long Partnerships UK has been involved in the Argyll and Bute Council project to develop a variant model founded on its public private partnership model.

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, whether it is appropriate for Partnerships UK to be advising on the relative merits of public private partnerships and not-for-profit trusts.

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, whether the involvement of Partnerships UK with Argyll and Bute Council in developing a variant model in relation to the school buildings programme is consistent with the pivotal role that Partnerships UK states it plays in the development of public private partnerships.

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, whether the involvement of Partnerships UK in developing a variant model of public private partnerships is consistent with its stated commitment to earning an appropriate and sustainable return on shareholders’ investments.

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, whether any of the directors of Partnerships UK are also directors of companies participating as the managing agents or contractors in public private partnership projects in which Partnerships UK is also involved.

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, whether any of the shareholders of Partnerships UK, other than the Scottish Executive and HM Treasury, are involved in public private partnership projects in any other capacity than as shareholders of Partnerships UK.

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, whether Partnerships UK constitutes "a powerful funding body".

Mr Andy Kerr: Partnerships UK have been working on the Argyll and Bute Project for over a year. This role is entirely consistent with its constitution and remit. Partnerships UK (PUK) is a research and developer, not an operator or a major funding body. It works with the Scottish Executive in the development of Public Private Partnership (PPP) policy and it has a specific remit to develop new models and applications for PPP's. Its financial targets are set to fulfil its public sector mission while permitting a fair return on capital. All directors are required to declare any interests in any matter coming before the board. In addition PUK operates an internal code of conduct which deals with a number of issues including conflict of interest. That code states that it will publish the other interests of its Directors and that, in the event that PUK is supporting the public sector on a project and is aware that one of its shareholders is involved in any part of the bidding process, it will formally notify relevant public sector clients as soon as it becomes aware of the involvement and agree a procedure with them for dealing with any potential or perceived conflicts.

Public Private Partnerships

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, whether it will allow all local authorities to establish not-for-profit trusts once the variant model developed by Argyll and Bute Council and Partnerships UK has been approved.

Mr Andy Kerr: The Non Profit Distributing Organisation model currently being developed with Argyll and Bute Council’s schools public private partnership project will take over a year to reach the stage where we can properly assess whether this variant model has been successful as a new delivery vehicle. That timing will not be suitable for most local authorities that were awarded funding in the 25 June 2002 announcement. However, dependant on the progress and outcome of the NPDO model, local authorities in the second tranche of Outline Business Cases may be able to be considered.

Public Private Partnerships

Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1O-5476 by Mr Andy Kerr on 5 September 2002, which project is intended to become the live procurement situation to test-bed a not-for-profit trust in Argyll and Bute.

Mr Andy Kerr: I refer the member to the answer given to question S1O-5476 on 5 September 2002. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

Public Transport

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what public transport funding grants it has given per capita to each local authority in each of the last three years.

Lewis Macdonald: The following table shows the total funding committed by the Scottish Executive in the last three years to each local authority under the Public Transport Fund, the Integrated Transport Fund and the Rural Public Passenger Grant element of the Rural Transport Fund, together with a cost per capita calculation.

  


Local Authority 
  

Population1


Total Funding (£ million) 
  

Cost Per Capita (£) 
  



Aberdeen City 
  

211,250 
  

10.887 
  

51.54 
  



Aberdeenshire 
  

227,200 
  

4.611 
  

20.29 
  



Angus 
  

109,180 
  

2.783 
  

25.49 
  



Argyll and Bute 
  

88,790 
  

10.113 
  

113.90 
  



Clackmannanshire 
  

48,460 
  

7.130 
  

147.13 
  



Dumfries and Galloway 
  

145,800 
  

8.410 
  

57.68 
  



Dundee City 
  

142,700 
  

5.987 
  

41.96 
  



East Ayrshire 
  

120,630 
  

4.550 
  

37.72 
  



East Dunbartonshire 
  

110,760 
  

0.733 
  

6.62 
  



East Lothian 
  

91,280 
  

1.821 
  

19.95 
  



East Renfrewshire 
  

89,790 
  

1.329 
  

14.80 
  



Edinburgh City 
  

453,430 
  

38.355 
  

84.59 
  



Eilean Siar 
  

27,180 
  

8.473 
  

311.74 
  



Falkirk 
  

144,320 
  

4.935 
  

34.19 
  



Fife 
  

350,400 
  

18.327 
  

52.30 
  



Glasgow City 
  

609,370 
  

23.289 
  

38.22 
  



Highland 
  

208,600 
  

8.933 
  

42.82 
  



Inverclyde 
  

84,600 
  

3.401 
  

40.02 
  



Midlothian 
  

82,200 
  

3.659 
  

44.51 
  



Moray 
  

84,950 
  

0.792 
  

9.32 
  



North Ayrshire 
  

138,850 
  

0.980 
  

7.06 
  



North Lanarkshire 
  

327,620 
  

2.336 
  

7.13 
  



Orkney Islands 
  

19,480 
  

3.220 
  

165.30 
  



Perth and Kinross 
  

133,620 
  

5.018 
  

37.55 
  



Renfrewshire 
  

176,970 
  

1.674 
  

9.46 
  



Scottish Borders 
  

106,900 
  

4.569 
  

42.74 
  



Shetland Islands 
  

22,440 
  

0.756 
  

33.69 
  



South Ayrshire 
  

113,920 
  

6.719 
  

58.98 
  



South Lanarkshire 
  

307,400 
  

2.933 
  

9.54 
  



Stirling 
  

85,220 
  

4.892 
  

57.40 
  



West Dunbartonshire 
  

94,600 
  

2.741 
  

28.97 
  



West Lothian 
  

156,690 
  

5.122 
  

32.69 
  



Scotland 
  

5,114,600 
  

209.478 
  

40.96 
  



  Note:

  1. Population figures: mid-year estimates, GRO(S) 2000.

  In addition, funding has also been committed to Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority (SPTA) as follows:

  


Local Authority 
  

Population1


Total Funding (£ million) 
  

Cost Per Capita (£) 
  



SPTA 
  

2,160,590 
  

39.737 
  

18.39 
  



  Note:

  1. Population figures: mid-year estimates, GRO(S) 2000.

Scottish Arts Council

Michael Russell (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will inquire into the appointment by the Scottish Arts Council of John McTernan as a consultant; whether a public tendering process was used for this post and, if so, what process was involved and, if not, what the reasons are for its position on this matter.

Dr Elaine Murray: This is a matter for the Scottish Arts Council. Recruitment practice is a matter for public bodies themselves although they are required to comply with employment legislation and the framework of guidance that is made available to them.

  In this case, Mr McTernan has been appointed in line with Scottish Arts Council’s established practice for appointing on a temporary basis to fill short-term skills gaps. Scottish Arts Council policy is that posts for periods of six months or less are not tendered for or advertised because it could be several months before anyone was available to take up the post.

Waste Water

Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what systems are in place to ensure the involvement of local communities in the monitoring of waste water treatment plants on a regular basis.

Ross Finnie: None.

  In my reply dated 27 June to your letter of 4 June specifically about the Seafield Waste Water Treatment Plant, I explained that the monitoring of aqueous effluent from waste water treatment plants is the responsibility of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. That letter also explained that the local authority concerned has legal powers relating to monitoring.

  Scottish Water arrange regular community liaison meetings during periods when its operations may impact on the community or when particular communities experience an on-going inconvenience or disruption as a result of the activities of Scottish Water or their contractors. An example is the Seafield Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) Community Liaison Group that meets bi-monthly to address local concerns regarding odour.

  Community Liaison groups have also been established for Shieldhall, Daldowie and Dalmuir WWTW (Glasgow) and another is about to be set up for Ardoch WWTW (Dumbarton). Liaison groups include local community councillors, politicians, business representatives and affected residents.

  Scottish Water is also invited to attend regular public meetings organised by the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland. These meetings address both water and waste water issues.

Water Safety

Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what action it plans to take in order to ensure that the public water supply is safe from water-borne diseases and contamination.

Ross Finnie: The Drinking Water Quality Regulator monitors compliance with the drinking water quality standards set out in The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990. The regulator has considerable enforcement powers and if appropriate will require Scottish Water to carry out any remedial measures necessary to protect public health. Scottish Water has also given Scottish ministers undertakings to upgrade water treatment facilities across Scotland to specified timescales.

Water Supply

Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to introduce legislation concerning the management of public water supplies.

Ross Finnie: The Executive will carefully consider the forthcoming reports into issues arising from the recent water supply incidents in Glasgow and Edinburgh. If any legislative response is required, we will act accordingly.